I recently bought a ZA5 3-15x42 about a monther ago and have the same problems of the focusing feature ot working properly. The image clarity was very poor. My Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 had a better image. I called Minox this morning about the problem. They told me to send it in and they would fix it. While i was on the phone, I asked if I could upgrade to a 3-15x50 and pay the retail difference between the two scopes. They said yes.

I am not happy with the performance of my scope, but I do not have any complaints about the customer service. Maybe I got an early on as well

I will post a more in depth review when I have the time, but purchased a Z5 3-15x50. I mounted it on my DPMS in .204. The magnification range is great, glass is very good, and tracking was right on. The only issue was that magnification ring was very stiff. However, after use it has moved much easier. Have used it the some scope in combination with my .204 2x and it was great both times.

If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert

I will post a more in depth review when I have the time, but purchased a Z5 3-15x50. I mounted it on my DPMS in .204. The magnification range is great, glass is very good, and tracking was right on. The only issue was that magnification ring was very stiff. However, after use it has moved much easier. Have used it the some scope in combination with my .204 2x and it was great both times.

I am just about done testing that scope and I am very impressed so far.

I sold my 2-10x40 ZA5, due to restrictive eye piece. little glare at eye piece under strong sun light. Sub-small image cricle. Also at their 10 power is more like 8~9 power to other scopes I have owned and tried. I do miss their vivid color even compair to conquest ( which color is little washed out), and great contrast at low light / dark area. Image resolution was great too.

I have a 2-10x40 ZA-5 Minox and I have not had any issues with it except a little flair at 10x into the low afternoon sum. Other than that one observation, the Minox appears to be a good, well made scope. My eye relief and reticle focus adjustments are per specification.

No problem with my 2-10x40 ZA-5,works rather well on my AR15[in .22lr format].I shoot mostly 75-150yrds so no real problem with parallex.The only thing I don't care for is that stupid scope coat it comes with.

I will post a more in depth review when I have the time, but purchased a Z5 3-15x50. I mounted it on my DPMS in .204. The magnification range is great, glass is very good, and tracking was right on. The only issue was that magnification ring was very stiff. However, after use it has moved much easier. Have used it the some scope in combination with my .204 2x and it was great both times.

I am just about done testing that scope and I am very impressed so far.

ILya

Ilya did you ever finish up that review? i looked on your site and didn't find it. I'm still interested in the 3-15... probably more interested in the 42 than the 50, but i'd like to read anything you have on it :)

I will post a more in depth review when I have the time, but purchased a Z5 3-15x50. I mounted it on my DPMS in .204. The magnification range is great, glass is very good, and tracking was right on. The only issue was that magnification ring was very stiff. However, after use it has moved much easier. Have used it the some scope in combination with my .204 2x and it was great both times.

I am just about done testing that scope and I am very impressed so far.

ILya

Ilya did you ever finish up that review? i looked on your site and didn't find it. I'm still interested in the 3-15... probably more interested in the 42 than the 50, but i'd like to read anything you have on it :)

The write-up is still in the queue. It is a nice scope. For the record though, the 3-15x42 is the one scope in Minox' line-up that I do not like. It really needs side-focus.

What type of reliability/durability testing do you do before you put your stamp of approval on a rifle scope? I

I do not put a "stamp of approval" on reliability or durability of a scope. I make recommendations based on things I can test. I can test optical quality. I can test mechanical precision and repeatability (where appropriate), such as turret operation, etc.

In order to make any sort of an authoritative statement on reliability and durability, I would have to have access to the statistical data on a large number of scopes. The fact that the specific scope that I tested has held up well or broke in use is statistically insignificant and has very little bearing on how that particular scope model will show up in the future.

As a matter of fact, if a scope held up fine, then it tells me exactly nothing. If something broke, then I can send it back to the manufacturer and ask them to do FA and share the results with me. That still does not tell me anything about reliability of the scope line. However, it does tell me if the manufacturer knows how to find and correct problems, hence shortly after a product line has been released into the market, they will likely find and correct all of the design flaws.

Any scope I test goes through the normal use and abuse: I put a lot of things on my 338LM with a funky recoil cycle, generally fire a fair number of rounds with different calibers (likely more than a typical hunter does in a couple of years), and use the various controls to excess. Scopes get dropped, kicked around the parking lot (wrapped in a towel) and basically are subject to whatever abuse I choose to dish out on that particular day.

However, all of that is intended for finding design flaws, not for making long reaching conclusions on scope reliability.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum